Fig. 4: In vivo characterization and resistance to dynamic interference of MUSAS.
From: Mechanical underwater adhesive devices for soft substrates
a, In vivo adhesion and retention achieved by MUSAS in different parts of the GI tract in a swine model. b, Controlled retention and detachment of optimal MUSAS in the swine stomach through programmed mechanical interlocking with various lamella materials. n = 3 devices per stainless steel (ST) and superelastic nitinol (SE) lamellae-based MUSAS; n = 13 devices for shape-memory nitinol (SM) lamellae-based MUSAS. The error bars represent mean ± s.d. See Extended Data Fig. 5d,e for further information. c, X-rays of long-term retention of four MUSAS delivered in the stomach before safe passage in the GI tract. Scale bars, 5 cm (left), 1 cm (right). Numbers 1–4 denote four individual devices. d, Endoscopic picture of MUSAS residing in the stomach. Scale bar, 1 cm. e, Oral-delivered MUSAS leveraging oesophagus contraction to achieve self-adhesion. Scale bar, 1 cm. Also see Supplementary Video 7. f,g, Histology of lamella spinule penetration depth of MUSAS on swine stomach tissue, confirming MUSAS as a non-invasive microneedle platform capable of breaching mucosal barriers. f, The interaction area between MUSAS and the stomach tissue. g, The penetration sites from top to bottom, with dashed lines encircling the penetration holes of lamellae interaction. Scale bar, 5 mm. n = 2 Yorkshire pigs evaluated.
